A type of logical reasoning that explains the agreement of the relationship between the respective parts and interactions of two similar systems
Authority
A person or source of information that is trusted based on knowledge, expertise, or position
Cause-and-effect
A type of logical reasoning that evaluates a relationship in which one event is responsible for another event
Chain of reasoning
A statement of general principles, assumptions, values, and beliefs that explain how the evidence is used to support the claim (aka warrant)
Claim
A statement about the natural world based on scientific observation intended to persuade another person
Correlation
The type of logical reasoning that evaluates the relationship between two variables in which the change is similar, but might not prove cause-and-effect
Counterargument
An alternative argument for the claim based on fact, data, theory, opinion, or other forms of reasoning
Data
Measurable observations of an object or event that are quantifiable or qualitative
Evidence
Information that is evaluated and presented to support or refute a claim
Fact
An observation of an object or event that has been repeatedly confirmed that scientists agree upon
Generalization
A type of logical reasoning that if something is true for a well-chosen sample, it is likely to hold for a similar larger group or population
Logic
A type of reasoning using rules or principles
Methodology
The scientific methods used to obtain trusted scientific evidence (e.g., good experimental design, good technique of data collection and analysis)
New Question
A statement suggesting other questions that should be investigated related to the claim
Objectivity
The extent to which a personal opinion or conflict of interest does not influence the collection, analysis, interpretation of the evidence. No apparent bias
Opinion
A personal belief, point of view, or perspective that might be based on evidence or on values or both
Qualifier
A word used to modify or narrow the focus of the claim. They clarify claims and make them more accurate
Reasoning
The process of using logical thinking to evaluate and explain how the evidence and methodology supports or refutes the claim
Rebuttal
A statement of an opposing viewpoint that a claim is wrong, invalid, or unacceptable with an explanation using evidence and reasoning
Reliability
The extent to which evidence is consistent (example: getting the same results each time you repeat the measurement)
Theory
A well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world based upon a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment
Analogy
A type of logical reasoning that explains the agreement of the relationship between the respective parts and interactions of two similar systemsAuthority
A person or source of information that is trusted based on knowledge, expertise, or positionCause-and-effect
A type of logical reasoning that evaluates a relationship in which one event is responsible for another eventChain of reasoning
A statement of general principles, assumptions, values, and beliefs that explain how the evidence is used to support the claim (aka warrant)Claim
A statement about the natural world based on scientific observation intended to persuade another personCorrelation
The type of logical reasoning that evaluates the relationship between two variables in which the change is similar, but might not prove cause-and-effectCounterargument
An alternative argument for the claim based on fact, data, theory, opinion, or other forms of reasoningData
Measurable observations of an object or event that are quantifiable or qualitativeEvidence
Information that is evaluated and presented to support or refute a claimFact
An observation of an object or event that has been repeatedly confirmed that scientists agree uponGeneralization
A type of logical reasoning that if something is true for a well-chosen sample, it is likely to hold for a similar larger group or populationLogic
A type of reasoning using rules or principlesMethodology
The scientific methods used to obtain trusted scientific evidence (e.g., good experimental design, good technique of data collection and analysis)New Question
A statement suggesting other questions that should be investigated related to the claimObjectivity
The extent to which a personal opinion or conflict of interest does not influence the collection, analysis, interpretation of the evidence. No apparent biasOpinion
A personal belief, point of view, or perspective that might be based on evidence or on values or bothQualifier
A word used to modify or narrow the focus of the claim. They clarify claims and make them more accurateReasoning
The process of using logical thinking to evaluate and explain how the evidence and methodology supports or refutes the claimRebuttal
A statement of an opposing viewpoint that a claim is wrong, invalid, or unacceptable with an explanation using evidence and reasoningReliability
The extent to which evidence is consistent (example: getting the same results each time you repeat the measurement)Theory
A well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world based upon a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentValidity
The extent to which evidence addresses the claim